|
|
Post by Acumen on Nov 4, 2006 19:31:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Nov 5, 2006 16:58:17 GMT
I understand that ICUS have issued the following press release:
ICUS deplores ICC's 'craven' decision - The ICC's decision to remove Darrell Hair from their 'Elite' Panel of Umpires is a craven surrender to commercial interests and catastrophic for the future of cricket, claims ICUS - the newly-formed Institute of Cricket Umpires & Scorers.
Under the Laws of the game not only are the umpires 'the sole judges of fair and unfair play', but, should they disagree with each other about a course of action, then nothing happens - the status quo stands. In the England - Pakistan Test Match at the Oval, umpires Hair and Doctrove, acting together, penalised the Pakistanis for ball tampering in accordance with Law 42.3(d). It does not matter what anyone else thinks about that decision. Both umpires made it and they are the only people empowered to do so. Both umpires then applied Law 21.3(b) in awarding the match to England.
Again, whether others agree with that decision is immaterial. Umpires act in accordance with the Laws of Cricket and they do so independently, without fear or favour. Their decision is final. That's how cricket is played.
The ICC's action has clearly not been taken on cricketing grounds since not only did they permit a decision made by both umpires to be overturned after the match, but only 'punished' one of them - Darrell Hair - for making it.
His colleague remains unaffected. Indeed umpire Billy Doctrove stood in the England-Pakistan ODI series that followed the Tests. Yet there are no 'senior' umpires in cricket matches. Hair is one of the best and most experienced Test Match umpires in the world, while Doctrove is a relative newcomer, but they are both of equal standing once out on the field.
The ICC's shameful treatment of Darrell Hair will grievously damage their already shabby reputation and seriously injure the game in general. It sends out a clear message that it will henceforth be open season for any bowler to cheat by deliberately changing the condition of the ball in the certain knowledge that no umpire can, or will, be allowed to penalise him for it.
Who knows what other tricks will follow? In future, some decisions will have to be left to lawyers unqualified in the interpretation and application of the Laws of Cricket to determine after the match is finished - hardly a recipe for pleasing the spectators!
In successfully 'encouraging' the ICC to sack Darrell Hair, the Pakistan Cricket Board and its supporters have simultaneously ensured that, in future, only those umpires who can be relied upon to give the 'right' decisions, or to be 'flexible' in the interpretation of the Laws will be appointed to stand in their matches - not trained, qualified officials of unassailable honesty and integrity. Without independent umpires the game loses credibility. Other ICC members who supported this unprincipled removal of Hair from the Elite Panel should be ashamed of themselves.
It is suggested that there was a threat of a walkout from the international game by certain ICC Full Member countries unless Darrell Hair were sacked. Evidently the Dubai-based ICC believed that keeping the money was more important than upholding the game's Laws. This decision may keep them rich but it sullies the reputation of international cricket, its players and its umpires. It demeans the spectators and reflects badly on the sponsors who support it, too.
It will eventually prove to have cost the game a lot more - and not just in terms of money. It was very much the wrong thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Nov 5, 2006 20:25:04 GMT
It's an absolute outrage.
An umpire is appointed to uphold the laws of the game. He does it but certain people don't like it. Eventually he loses his living over it.
I fully agree with the previous post. The on field decision was made by TWO umpires as a team. it would seem that it's only our Antipodean friend who has to fall on his sword. is this because of a "history" with certain teams who do not like him.
We all know that there is more than this but nobody dare say anything.
|
|
johnump
Regular Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by johnump on Nov 5, 2006 21:57:32 GMT
Or could be to do with the way he conducted himself after the incident?  Trying to get money under the table so to speak in exchange for his retirement. Hardly something a man confident of his actions would do. |
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Nov 7, 2006 12:19:00 GMT
I've taken this cutting from an article in Cricinfo:
I think I agree with Mr Sutherland 100%
|
|
|
|
Post by nompere on Nov 7, 2006 20:49:48 GMT
I would still like to know what Doug Cowie said to Darrell Hair that induced Darrell to talk to (presumably) his solicitor, who dictated parts of the email over the telephone.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpunter on Nov 8, 2006 20:07:51 GMT
Do I remember rightly that Doug Cowie has "asked" Mr Hair what his price would be to walk away ? He then did so and Cowie goes bleating to the press.
Imagine if any of us had sent a confidential email to our own employer who then called for a press conference to tell the world!
The whole saga reeks. However, it still boils down to an umpire interpreting the laws of the game but the players not liking it. Then the people who set the laws agree that they don't like it.
The lunatics are taking over the asylum.
|
|
Trying to get money under the table so to speak in exchange for his retirement. Hardly something a man confident of his actions would do.
